We asked people from different spheres of society how and in what terms they see India’s future

Development economist Abhijit Banerjee, professor at the Massa­chu­setts Institute of Technology, is a close tracker of the Indian economy. He is the co-author of the award-winning work, Poor Eco­nomics, along with Esther Duflo. Excerpts from an interview with Lola Nayar:

How does the Indian economy look today from an international vantage point? Is it, as many feel, at an inflection point after two years of lacklustre growth?

There is a small financial community which is carefully watching. But it will take time and some specific implemented policy changes before the consensus emerges that things have really changed.

Is the BJP’s victory in the 2014 elections a mandate for a shift in focus in the Indian economy, as some people feel?

“The UPA govt was concerned with reducing poverty, not inequality. It is a concern no govt can afford to ignore.”

There was no serious concern with growing inequality of wealth under the UPA government. There was a concern with reducing poverty, but not inequality. It is a concern no government can afford to ignore. The big difference is that this government is trying to be more pro-business than the previous government. The question of where to put public investment and the balance between investment in infrastructure and social dev­elopment is where we may see some shifts. And we might see some important shifts in the regulatory stance of the state. It will be interesting to see how this government deals with the green tribunal and the land issues—those are regulatory issues.

Food inflation continues as it did before the elections. Are we going to be in a permanent state of higher inflation?

Partly, there is a global trend towards food inflation. We are also trying to have it both ways: it is always hard to make credit more easily available while trying to totally eliminate inflation—this is not going to happen. It is true that there are a lot of inefficiencies in the food chain management which could be reduced, but it would not be easy. And even after that there is going to be pressure from the fact that the economy is growing and the credit is growing.

The BJP government says it will recraft social development schemes...

“States may take more ownership of a scheme if they designed it themselves rather than be given to implement.”

The UPA government’s strategy had a kind of dual approach. There were ministries that took care of growth and others that took care of social development, and the NAC was kind of in charge of these ministries. The result was that there was not enough focus in the social development ministries on productivity and efficiency of resource use. The best example is the Right to Education where a lot of critical issues that had to do with the productivity of the education sector were ignored as they were seen not as development issues but as social upliftment issues. This meant you got a bill that is totally dysfunctional in many ways. My main advice to this government would be that the social agenda is central to the survival and prosperity of the country and you cannot treat it as a side-show.

It has been argued that states have a bigger role in the implementation of welfare schemes. How can the outcomes be improved? Will privatisation yield better results?

As a point of fact, most social programmes are implemented by the states. The issue is more that these schemes are centrally designed and handed down to the states to implement; maybe the states would take greater ownership of them if these were their own schemes and they might also fit the local needs better.

After long years of debate on poverty numbers and the yardstick for measuring dire poverty, Dr C. Rangarajan in his report rec­en­tly suggested Rs 32 for rural and Rs 47 for urban poverty. Do you agree with this measure?

I am okay with these, though it is worth emphasising that raising the poverty line (which is what the Rangarajan committee recommends) helps the rich states get more money from anti-poverty programmes at the expense of the poorer states. Mostly we need to stop acting as if there is some intrinsic truth behind these lines, when they are just tools for measurement.

“(For intrinsic sustainable growth), we need to take it seriously, especially the
sustainable part.”

Based on your research and projects under the Poverty Action Lab, where and when do welfare policies yield desired results and where do they fail?

Good intentions and grand theories do not make a good programme. Programmes work best when they’re based on a detailed und­er­standing of the problem being solved and how they are implemented on the ground.

Both the UPA and NDA governments talk about inclusive sustainable growth. What is intrinsic to achieving the objective?

Taking it seriously, especially the sustainable part. We are great at coming up with fancy words that can mean all things to all people.

How important is the state role in improving human development indices, given that we are hearing that government role should be restricted to governance, not schools, hospitals and industries?

Industries is clearly a bad idea. But the world over, education and health are delivered by governments. It does not have to be that way, but one reason why our government schools and clinics work so badly has to do with our unwill­ingness to punish the criminally delinq­uent behaviour of teachers and health workers. If there was a political will to take them on, even the current system would work a lot better.

If you wish your letter to be considered for publication in the print magazine, we request you to use a proper name, with full postal address - you could still maintain your anonymity, but please desist from using unpublishable sobriquets and handles

Apropos of ‘Social Agenda Has To Be Central To The Country; It Can’t Be A Side-Show’ (Interview of Abhijeet Banerjee, Outlook: July 21, 2014), the actual economic growth of the country will surface when the effects of the development trickle down to the poorest of the poor. A nation cannot thrive economically just by media hype and empty slogans, when millions of the countrymen are devoid of proper health facilities, education, sanitation and even food. Bullet trains and SEZ may be great ideas, but the need of the hour is to prepare our human resources by providing them subsidized food and education. The middle classes consider it to be sheer waste of public exchequer, but how can the country progress when most of the poor people lead an abject and miserable life of extreme poverty. The people who are lagging behind in development need to be promoted first through Government’s affirmative action so that these classes may become an asset in our national progress in place of just remaining a liability.

As a point of fact, most social programmes are implemented by the states. The issue is more that these schemes are centrally designed and handed down to the states to implement; "

It can't be any other way. Only the centre creates money. The states DO NOT.

Privatization will wreak the economy if TRADE DEFICITS exceed FISCAL DEFICITS because the difference ( FISCAL DEFICIT - TRADE DEFICIT) = NET PRIVATE SAVINGS is the economic balance of a monetary sovereign nation. The left hand side is the SOURCE of money to the economy, now at 4.6% of GDP, pretty damn small!

@Ramki - "but misogynist is anti women so he wont relish those calendars and the beautiful models."

:) Don't be so sure. Relishing is quite independent of his 'avowed' opinion regarding women. It all could be a facade. I suspect he cries wolf to blunt the effect of real wolf. Don't forget his abhorrence for a male-led BJP and soft corner for a woman-led congress.

We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism

But:

1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.

2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads

3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site

4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.

5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT

6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.

7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.

8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.

9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:

a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you